Search results

A January 3, 2005 column called "Group Lists Top Unfounded Health Scares of 2004" by Andi Atwater on www.News-Press.com recounts ACSH's report The Top Ten Unfounded Health Scares of 2004:

For immediate release
New York, New York -- February 2, 2005. The American Council on Science and Health today warned of the serious and negative health implications of our nation's current fixation with removing "carcinogens" -- trace levels of chemicals that at high dose cause cancer in laboratory rodents -- from the food, water and general environment.

New York, NY -- February 2005. The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is pleased to announce the release of an updated version of its publication The Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis.
Osteoporosis is a progressive bone disorder that weakens bones and can result in multiple debilitating fractures. It is a major health threat in the United States; ten million Americans, most of them women, already have the disease, and millions more are at risk.

Superstitions -- closely held beliefs lacking any scientific support -- have been around for ages. They promise empowerment: if you take some pre-emptive action (avoid broken mirrors, black cats, or ladders) you can dodge dire consequences. True, there is no evidence that such actions protect you, but just in case, you take a few extra steps to avoid the ladder. After all, you never know.
Superstitions prevail in our high-tech era. Take for example the common practice of using the results of high-dose rodent cancer tests to predict which substances might cause human cancer.

A March 24, 2005 report on MSNBC's show Countdown, as part of MSNBC's "Faith in America" week, discussed faith healers and included ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross on a skeptical note:
[REPORTER MONICA] NOVOTNY (voice-over): But not everyone believes. Dr. Gilbert Ross says while some may be healed, their cures can be explained.

An April 20, 2005 article by Kristen Greencher notes reactions to the federal government's new food pyramid nutrition guidelines, including the reaction of ACSH's Director of Nutrition, Dr. Ruth Kava:

This article appeared on MedicalProgressToday.com.

This article appeared in the May 1, 2005 New York Daily News, paired with an opposing argument from Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest:

What if there was growing evidence that an already-existing drug, taken daily, might dramatically reduce the risk of breast cancer?
Shouldn't that be more newsworthy than fund-raising walkathons done in the quixotic pursuit of a simple cure? More noteworthy than the latest lab test which classifies an environmental chemical as a rodent carcinogen?
U.S. and Canadian scientists, led by Harvard's Dr. Peter Goss, this week began recruiting thousands of women at high risk of breast cancer to participate in a study of what may well be just such a drug.

This article originally appeared on http://www.techcentralstation.com.
Although the media coverage here in the United States has been non-existent, much of the world has been experiencing one of the great food scares -- and food recalls -- of modern times.

Given today's federal judge's ruling striking down the FDA's ban of the dangerous natural weight-loss supplement, ephedra, we would like to remind you what we said about the matter when the FDA first made the decision. This commentary is only more relevant today...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FDA vs. Congress on Ephedra Ban
Jeff Stier, Esq.
published on January 9, 2004

Editor's note: The President's vow today to veto the bill passed by the House that loosened restrictions on embryonic stem cell research included a dismissal of the idea that there are any "spare" embryos, implying that even IVF procedures should be followed by "adoption" of all the embryos thereby created, not merely the implantation of one best fertilized egg cell in the patient's womb. It seems timely, then, to take another look at the June 28, 2004 piece on stem cells and IVF written by ACSH's Aubrey Stimola...

H.L. Mencken once said that "the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Apparently, here in New York, where the American Council on Science and Health is headquartered, Democrats and Republicans alike are well-versed in this philosophy, since this year we have been subjected to one health scare after another -- all bogus -- accompanied by slick, unscientific, purported "solutions":

In an effort to cope with rising health care costs, areas of Washington state created a plan that will reward employees for good health by charging them less for healthcare if they meet certain standards of health.

A May 2005 list of environmentalism's critics in Outside magazine includes Emily Sohn's profile of Elizabeth Whelan: President, American Council on Science and Health:

You're being suckered about a certain central science question, all the time. Even my best-educated non-scientist friends haven't a clue. And who can blame them? You can't turn on the TV, open a newspaper, or go into a supermarket without being bombarded with misinformation on this topic. It also happens to be my pet peeve.
Question: In general, are natural substances (isolated from living sources) any better, safer, or healthier than man-made substances?

Obesity has been much touted in some quarters as being a leading cause of preventable death in the United States, second only to smoking. About a year ago, a study published by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated the number of excess deaths attributable to obesity at 400,000, a value later corrected to 365,000. (1) Publication of these figures created quite a stir, and gave impetus to the drive by health professionals and others to encourage Americans to revise their lifestyles -- especially to eat less and move more.

A June 9, 2005 editorial in the Free Lance-Star, about DDT's usefulness in fighting malaria and the tragedy of the deadly ban on DDT, quotes ACSH president Dr. Elizabeth Whelan on the matter:

This letter appeared in the New York Times on May 31, 2005:
To the Editor:
Perhaps we should anticipate dedicated couch potatoes' pointing to information that genetic predisposition influences one's tendency to sit still or fidget ("New Weight-Loss Focus: The Lean and the Restless," May 24) as a rationale for being overweight. ("I can't help it; it's genetic.")

The Ralph Nader-inspired nutrition-nanny organization, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), this week proclaimed that sodas -- sugar-sweetened and diet versions -- pose a health hazard, particularly to children, and warrant cigarette-style warning labels. The report, "Liquid Candy: How Soft Drinks Are Harming America's Health," charges that soda consumption increases the risks of ailments ranging from heart disease to tooth decay, osteoporosis, cancer, obesity, and poor nutrition.

This article originally appeared in TechCentralStation.com:
This week, General Mills announced its intent to launch a national ad campaign which will be targeted at children and tout the health benefits of eating breakfast especially a breakfast of cereal that the company produces. Among the General Mills cereals being promoted to kids are several brands that are pre-sweetened with added sugar.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has announced his support of the state's pending bills to limit the sale of soda and "junk food" in public schools. He claims this will help in the fight against childhood obesity and says that obesity-related health problems may be costing the state billions of dollars each year, with the number of overweight children still increasing.

Alarmism is harmful at any dose. Just as political mudslinging can unfairly sully reputations, sensational news about health dangers can rattle public confidence -- whether or not the sensational report turns out to be true.

A July 16, 2005 article by Jeff Montgomery on DelawareOnline.com touted the Environmental Working Group's alarmist report about chemicals in our blood but noted ACSH president Dr. Elizabeth Whelan's response:
Elizabeth M. Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health, said that EWG had been "trying for years to scare us" about chemicals in the environment. The group provided nothing to show that the levels detected were harmful, Whelan said.

This article appeared August 1, 2005 on the Heartland Institute's Heartland.org, and an earlier version appeared on NationalReview.com: